D&D 5E Rule of Three - February 14th

[GX.Sigma]

I don't understand how the polymorph change helps on the PvE side.

If you're fighting a bunch of fire giants, and you polymorph one of them into a rat, that giant is out of the encounter. It's not like the other ones are going to know they have to kill it to get their friend back.

If you're fighting a dragon, and you polymorph him into a rat, the encounter is over. It doesn't matter that he changes back after X damage; you just take his stuff and run.

How is it not still an encounter-ender?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't understand how the polymorph change helps on the PvE side.

If you're fighting a bunch of fire giants, and you polymorph one of them into a rat, that giant is out of the encounter. It's not like the other ones are going to know they have to kill it to get their friend back.

If you're fighting a dragon, and you polymorph him into a rat, the encounter is over. It doesn't matter that he changes back after X damage; you just take his stuff and run.

How is it not still an encounter-ender?

I would imagine because Solo type creatures like dragons will have ways to break those spells as Rodney intimated.

So its a good control spell to remove one of a group of monsters-- monsters of the standard variety who won't have special ways to break SoD types of spells. It just won't be as useful against Solos. Although... it might still have some use if you can still get it to go off and it gives you a round or two without the dragon attacking... giving you a couple rounds to heal up or get into better positions for when the dragon gets another save and snaps back into its normal form. A 4E-ish [save ends] kind of deal.

 

[Ichneumon]

High-level spell slots are at a premium. The last public playtest listed one slot for each spell level from 6-9. Yes, this could have changed in future revisions, but they wouldn't be at liberty to push it too far without significantly altering the power of high level casters. (Personally, I find reports of balance defenestration in D&D Next to be greatly exaggerated). Many casters will keep their low-level buffs around in case they need to spend their precious high-level slots on powerful non-concentration spells.

I have better things to do than worry about the dreaded dual-concentration feat showing up one day. The designers know that if they make it, all concentration-based spells & effects will need extra work for proper vetting. And who wants unnecessary extra work?

 

[ppaladin123]

If they are bringing back the rule from a previous playtest packet that damage can break spell concentration I hope they also bring back the ability of some melee classes (the old war cleric had it I believe) to more easily maintain concentration when suffering damage. Maybe a wizard can't easily concentrate on a spell while trading blows with a monster but that could have been part of the training of a war priest/paladin/arcane blade/bard.

 

[Libramarian]

Won't the concentration mechanic, because it works on the caster rather than the target, distort the value of adding another caster to a group that already has a caster, because they can stack effects together? That's going to be kind of odd and un-D&Dish IMO. Don't like the idea that a caster is relatively gimped unless they work in pairs.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Won't the concentration mechanic, because it works on the caster rather than the target, distort the value of adding another caster to a group that already has a caster, because they can stack effects together?

No because adding another caster will mean choosing not to add something else - assuming the number of players remains the same. More casters means a need for more meat shields to keep the monsters at bay Figuratively speaking, of course.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Won't the concentration mechanic, because it works on the caster rather than the target, distort the value of adding another caster to a group that already has a caster, because they can stack effects together? That's going to be kind of odd and un-D&Dish IMO. Don't like the idea that a caster is relatively gimped unless they work in pairs.

I don't really look at it as gimped. They are only so effective. Having 2 wizards means being twice as effective. Which is fine. Having 2 fighters should make you twice as effective as well.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I asked Rodney about this on Twitter. Here was the conversation:

Me: How does the polymorph change help? You turn the dragon into a mouse, take its stuff, and run. Still an encounter-ender.

Rodney: First, it should be tough to polymorph a dragon, which should have good saves and magic resistance. Second, once the spell ends, that dragon isn't going to be that far away from you unless you have some fast travel method. Third, a dragon in its lair (where you'd find its hoard) likely has other defenses (traps, servitor creatures, etc.) Or it's legendary and benefiting from lair actions to resist or end the spell early. And if all of that isn't enough and you manage to get away, I say that's good work. You planned ahead and spent the resources.

Me: Ok, but what about the fire giants example? You turn one of them into a mouse, and fight the rest. How does the HP thing help?

Rodney: You're using it for crowd control, not complete encounter negation. And if you're concentrating on keeping him a mouse, you aren't using any other concentration spells.

Me: My point: You presented the HP change as a fix, but I don't see how it fixed anything.

Rodney: The previous version allowed you to completely bypass monster HP to achieve a permanent victory: death. Polymorph can give you victory, but not the same kind of permanence.

Me: Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the insight! I appreciate your responses.

Rodney: No problem. It's my pleasure. Also, I think it's an important part of looking at D&DN to remember that the adventure doesn't end when the encounter does.

 

[Lokiare]

No because adding another caster will mean choosing not to add something else - assuming the number of players remains the same. More casters means a need for more meat shields to keep the monsters at bay Figuratively speaking, of course.

Nah, you just make one of the casters a Dwarf with the heavy armor mastery feat and the false life spell and/or mirror image and have them tank.

I asked Rodney about this on Twitter. Here was the conversation:

Me: How does the polymorph change help? You turn the dragon into a mouse, take its stuff, and run. Still an encounter-ender.

Rodney: First, it should be tough to polymorph a dragon, which should have good saves and magic resistance. Second, once the spell ends, that dragon isn't going to be that far away from you unless you have some fast travel method. Third, a dragon in its lair (where you'd find its hoard) likely has other defenses (traps, servitor creatures, etc.) Or it's legendary and benefiting from lair actions to resist or end the spell early. And if all of that isn't enough and you manage to get away, I say that's good work. You planned ahead and spent the resources.

First, negating advantage is trivial at the levels you will be facing a dragon. Second, Ability scores don't go up with level anymore so the dragon will have average saves like most 'exceptional' monsters. Third, you would use Polymorph after using web a few times to make sure the Dragon uses up its auto-save feature (something you can justify in game by research "Dragons can resist certain magics, but this ability has limits."). Fourth, there is no planning ahead, Polymorph is such a good versatile spell its unlikely you wouldn't have it prepared.

Me: Ok, but what about the fire giants example? You turn one of them into a mouse, and fight the rest. How does the HP thing help?

Rodney: You're using it for crowd control, not complete encounter negation. And if you're concentrating on keeping him a mouse, you aren't using any other concentration spells.

Me: My point: You presented the HP change as a fix, but I don't see how it fixed anything.

Rodney: The previous version allowed you to completely bypass monster HP to achieve a permanent victory: death. Polymorph can give you victory, but not the same kind of permanence.

Me: Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the insight! I appreciate your responses.

Rodney: No problem. It's my pleasure. Also, I think it's an important part of looking at D&DN to remember that the adventure doesn't end when the encounter does.

Its better than it was before, but a house that is half burning down instead of fully burning down is still burning down.

 

[Argyle King]

Question 1: I think concentration is a good idea. I'm not currently convinced that it adequately addressed problems with D&D's magic system as I see them.


Question 2: I agree that such a feat should not exist.



Question 3:

I read "if you polymorph a giant into a frog, you don't squash the 1 HP frog because then it just turns back into the giant."

I don't know if this actually addresses anyone's problems with the spell, though.

That's how I understood it as well, but I do think the wording was a little convoluted and unclear.

I think it addresses being able to insta-kill via direct damage, but still does not address the spell being an encounter ending spell. There are far worse things I can do to the frog than squish it.

I'm a little confused by the mention of 4E solos. They weren't very effective. What I hope he means by that is they're looking at the mistakes/issues with 4E solo design, and not making some of the same choices, but are instead using some of the ideas seen in the solos of later 4E books.